All 3 Debates between Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan

Private Rented Housing: Electrical Safety Checks

Debate between Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Monday 26th February 2018

(6 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Portrait Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
- Hansard - -

My Lords, no, I do not think that is an appropriate conclusion at all. There is a balance of people on the working party: some are from tenants’ organisations, some have a landlord background. It a very balanced review. What is suggested in the review is that this could be taken forward as best practice—so a voluntary approach to that extent. That is something that will be tested in the broader consultation that we are now undertaking.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan Portrait Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. Is the Minister confident that there are sufficient competent people to carry out these checks? My understanding is that local authorities have woefully few people working in building control inspection to carry out the kind of checks that would be required. If it were left to voluntarism, it would be highly dangerous. The issue should surely be to make the building regs inspectors’ jobs more attractive and recruit more of them. These are the kind of people who should carry out this type of work, rather than leaving it to well-intentioned amateurs and volunteers.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Portrait Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I encourage the noble Lord to participate in the consultation, but I note what he says and I share the view that it is important to ensure that we have sufficient people who are expert in this field who are able to undertake the work necessary. That is a broader consideration and something that the Government are certainly on top of. In the meantime, as I say, the reason why we are having this consultation is so that we can test some of the recommendations that have been made by a very well-balanced working party, but perhaps we need broader consultation.

Fuel Poverty

Debate between Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Thursday 28th January 2016

(8 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Portrait Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
- Hansard - -

My Lords, yes, of course it is; I share that sentiment. It is a problem throughout the United Kingdom, not just in England, and it is being addressed by the Governments of the respective parts of the kingdom. That is why we are focusing, with the sole consideration of fuel poverty, on the recast energy company obligation, which will be in force by 2018. I think that the whole House should take pleasure in, and credit for, that.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan Portrait Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The reduction in gas prices that has been announced by the energy utilities is welcome, but is it in fact the maximum that they could cut, given the dramatic fall in the price of both oil and gas? Are the Government monitoring the situation to ensure that consumers get early redress in relation to what has been a high price level for too long in this area, given that basic gas prices are considerably lower now than they were when the prices were first set?

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Portrait Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has indicated that we are looking to the energy companies to reduce their prices. Two of them, E.ON and SSE, have today announced reductions and we are looking to others to do the same. We also await the outcome of the CMA report, as I have indicated. We hope that it is a robust report because we are very much on the side of the consumer and want bills to be affordable.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Wednesday 21st October 2015

(9 years, 2 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan Portrait Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, before the Minister leaves this point, could he tell us, first, what sums are involved in these investment problems at present, how many of them have been prejudiced and how much they were worth in the first place? Secondly, will he give us some idea of the global sums involved in the whole sorry procedure that we are having to go through?

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Portrait Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
- Hansard - -

My Lords, obviously much is dependent upon when the legislation goes through, and that is in the hands of this House and another place. Therefore, I think it is impossible to say with any certainty—or even to give an estimate—exactly how much is at stake. It relates to those projects that have already deployed, and so they are being given additional time to deploy. It is for individual projects that suffer from this investment freeze to come forward. We have done this in response to the engagement exercise. It will not deploy any more wind projects and it allows those projects that have deployed, following our proposals under the grace period, an added period within which to bring forward their projects and have the existing position.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan Portrait Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I take it then that the Minister is unaware of the financial implications of what he is asking us to support this afternoon.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Portrait Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
- Hansard - -

My Lords, it is not for me to determine whether the conditions are met. There is a process set out in relation to those projects that would be able to deploy and, if they have suffered a hiatus, for them to come forward with the claim in relation to how much it is. It is not going to cost any additional money, because it just gives them additional time in which to deploy. As I am coming to, it gives them approximately another nine months. It is not an additional amount of deployment; it is some projects that will deploy being allowed additional time to meet the conditions.